Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Cats Not Linked To Brain Cancer After All

Unknown Lamer posted about 2 years ago | from the except-for-nyan-cat dept.

Medicine 102

sciencehabit writes with good news for cat owners everywhere. From the article: "Last year, cat owners got a scare when a team of French researchers reported a possible link between felines and brain cancer. Cat feces can harbor a single-celled parasite called Toxoplasma gondii, and the scientists found that nations with higher rates of human T. gondii infection also have higher incidences of brain cancer. A new study challenges those findings [paywalled after the first view]. Scientists examining a cohort of more than 600,000 British women found that cat owners were no more likely to develop brain cancer than their cat-free counterparts, despite their presumably greater risk of exposure to T. gondii." The study in question mostly just found that T. gondii infection rates aren't correlated with cat ownership after all, but there's still no word on whether our friend the parasite causes cancer or not.

cancel ×

102 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Catasses (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41080981)

Catassing in now easier than ever before, now with 99% less brain cancer.

No shit? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41080987)

Anyone with an ounce of common fucking sense could have told you the entire thing was fucking bullshit. In fact, many did. It's called JUNK SCIENCE. But, hey, it keeps being reported on as legitimate news. Fucking morons.

Re:No shit? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41081081)

Don't you know how this works?

Step 1: Half-ass science

Step 2: Publish findings in Lady's Home Journal, Redbook Maxim or other reputable scientific journal.

Step 3: Ferment (see, it's not a mystery anymore).

Step 4: PROFIT/Urban Legend.

Re:No shit? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41081933)

What would be funny is to see what other scientific articles cited this one...

sometimes it IS a conspiracy: (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41082021)

I get all my science reporting from Mozzie on "White Collar".

Re:No shit? (4, Funny)

Theophany (2519296) | about 2 years ago | (#41081743)

Wait, you mean I CAN'T haz brain cancer??

Re:No shit? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41083465)

Common sense says something about the statistical factors affecting a condition that affects less than 0.1% of people, after much larger factors like income, gender, other sources of cancer have been factored out? Common sense has enough trouble factors that contribute to 10% of an every day effect, I don't think common sense really has much application here. You have to do the actual math here and see what the data says, not wing it with common sense.

And while the original paper may still be faulty, it is not obvious junk science. Even right in the abstract they acknowledge that this is only a correlation and not necessarily causative. They said this might suggest some one should actually test toxoplasma directly to see if it can cause cancer, not that it definitively causes cancer.

Correlation != causation (2, Funny)

Joce640k (829181) | about 2 years ago | (#41080995)

There might be *other* things in those nations which cause brain cancer, eg. a national addiction to eating garlic sausages in vinegar. Or something.

Re:Correlation != causation (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41081369)

Or being a liberal. weeee go slash stupid, why is this article on here?

Re:Correlation != causation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41081957)

which is the junk science?

They do or they do not?

How can you tell which is the junk science?

How do I know your not a shill?

Re:Correlation != causation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41082141)

Maybe that addiction is the result of brain cancer ;)

Re:Correlation != causation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41083565)

Correlation != causation is an overrated slashdot phrase.

After all what do you propose? That scientists investigate links between stuff that's not correlated or unlikely to be correlated?

Re:Correlation != causation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41083571)

As acknowledged right in the abstract of the original paper finding the link to brain cancer. The scientists knew it was just a correlation, and suggested that maybe someone should check more directly.

Re:Correlation != causation (1)

yurtinus (1590157) | about 2 years ago | (#41084905)

Idiots.

The evidence is clear. Studies indicate brain cancer causes cats.

Re:Correlation != causation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41085889)

I was going to say that brains cause cancer, but your response is better. If only I both had mod points, and could log in at work.

Re:Correlation != causation (1)

RaceProUK (1137575) | about 2 years ago | (#41092765)

Mod points, mod points, my karma for mod points!

however (4, Funny)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | about 2 years ago | (#41080999)

They are correlated to finding poop in boxes in your home.

correlation != causation! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41081011)

Typical European studies.... they think correlation is causation....

Re:correlation != causation! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41093405)

What, as opposed to a US study: "God did it, now what's the question?"

Again... (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41081051)

A cat infected with toxoplasma gondii will excrete the parasite in the feces for some days (weeks) after first infection, and then will stop doing it forever.
Most toxoplasmosis infectiosn in humans are due to consuming uncooked meat or poorly washed vegetables.

Re:Again... (1)

Joce640k (829181) | about 2 years ago | (#41081457)

A cat infected with toxoplasma gondii will excrete the parasite in the feces for some days (weeks) after first infection, and then will stop doing it forever.

What about humans who have it? Do they need continual re-exposure, too?

Re:Again... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41081981)

Bullshit. [citation needed] That certainly isn't what I learned in my parasitology classes in medical school.

Re:Again... (1)

Sentrion (964745) | about 2 years ago | (#41082583)

My cat's in your garden...pooping on your vegetables.

You probably have it too (4, Interesting)

muon-catalyzed (2483394) | about 2 years ago | (#41081079)

Half of the world's human population carry a Toxoplasma infection. [wikipedia.org] So better choose your bridge jump off point.

Re:You probably have it too (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41082485)

Probably not. At least, not according to the article you linked.

Re:You probably have it too (1)

majesticmerc (1353125) | about 2 years ago | (#41087079)

Too soon man, too soon :(

as a precaution ... (5, Funny)

citab (1677284) | about 2 years ago | (#41081103)

I'm still having my regular scheduled Cat Scans ....

Re:as a precaution ... (2)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | about 2 years ago | (#41081127)

Good thing to do to avoid cat-astrophe.

Re:as a precaution ... (1)

rullywowr (1831632) | about 2 years ago | (#41081169)

Anything is pawsible...

Re:as a precaution ... (1)

madhatter256 (443326) | about 2 years ago | (#41081325)

I can haz brain cancer now?

Re:as a precaution ... (4, Funny)

ilsaloving (1534307) | about 2 years ago | (#41081343)

Please, no more puns. I'll go catatonic...

Re:as a precaution ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41081847)

That comment was just purrrfect.

Re:as a precaution ... (1)

hierophanta (1345511) | about 2 years ago | (#41082063)

please please, i cant take it, you must stop meow!

Re:as a precaution ... (2)

dd1968 (1174479) | about 2 years ago | (#41082337)

please please, i cant take it, you must stop meow!

Don't be a pussy.

Re:as a precaution ... (1)

opentunings (851734) | about 2 years ago | (#41082365)

The posters on this thread risk becoming illiterate.

Re:as a precaution ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41082891)

The posters on this thread risk becoming illiterate.

Oh, stop yer lion...

Re:as a precaution ... (1)

N0Man74 (1620447) | about 2 years ago | (#41086375)

Your words have caused me to give paws.

Re:as a precaution ... (2, Funny)

somersault (912633) | about 2 years ago | (#41081433)

I wish there were a way to purrge these comments.

Re:as a precaution ... (1)

HybridST (894157) | about 2 years ago | (#41081539)

You could concatenate them instead...

Re:as a precaution ... (1)

kaizendojo (956951) | about 2 years ago | (#41081541)

Meow, meow folks... I think we should be mice to each other and cut out the cat calls.

Re:as a precaution ... (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41082043)

This isn't Reddit. Fuck off, and take your shitty friends with you.

Re:as a precaution ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41082977)

NO! I find these puns very amewsing!

Re:as a precaution ... (1)

N0Man74 (1620447) | about 2 years ago | (#41086389)

I've never been on Reddit.. but someone sure seems to have rubbed your fur the wrong way.

Re:as a precaution ... (1)

unholy1 (764019) | about 2 years ago | (#41082257)

... and i'm feline fine!

one of the first lessons in statistics is (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41081139)

"people who know nothing about science use statistics to do science"

i know that tests and hypothesis have to ignore certain facts, but people confuse hypothesis and conclusion all the time. law of big numbers is pretty cool things, but people love to use it without taking care of other important factors...

it's like buying 1,000,000 poker traffic on some provider and then sending it to a dating site... even though 1,000,000 is a big number, your conclusion would probably be bad. any internet marketer knows this and these "scientists" have no clue about it.

FAIL!

Headline (2)

cervesaebraciator (2352888) | about 2 years ago | (#41081157)

The study in question mostly just found that T. gondii infection rates aren't correlated with cat ownership after all, but there's still no word on whether our friend the parasite causes cancer or not.

Then I'd suggest the headline should be Cats May Not Be Linked To Brain Cancer After All. For where the cats go, so goes toxoplasma and we should know well enough, unless we're Reader's Digest or Prevention magazine, not to jump to a conclusion that the study did not demonstrate.

Re:Headline (1)

mcgrew (92797) | about 2 years ago | (#41085039)

not to jump to a conclusion that the study did not demonstrate.

The study demonstrated that there is no correlation between cat ownership and brain cancer. So the headline is, in fact, correct as is and yours is completely incorrect. Your headline would only be correct if there was a slight correlation, but none whatever was found.

Re:Headline (1)

s0nicfreak (615390) | about 2 years ago | (#41086965)

Cat ownership != cats.

Re:Headline (1)

mcgrew (92797) | about 2 years ago | (#41095871)

Cat ownership == cats, cats != cat ownership.

Re:Headline (1)

s0nicfreak (615390) | about 2 years ago | (#41100651)

You are wrong. Cat ownership == there is a cat involved. But cat ownership != cats.

Cat ownership is not linked to brain cancer after all. But the verdict is still out on if encountering cats and cat poop in ways other than cat ownership is linked to brain cancer.

Mind-altering parasite (5, Interesting)

T.E.D. (34228) | about 2 years ago | (#41081193)

I happened to be looking at this yesterday after hearing an NPR story. It turns out that T. gondii [wikipedia.org] is actually a mind-altering parasite. It reproduces in the guts of rodents, and then in order to get back into its preferred cat hosts, has actually evolved to alter the brains of rodents [wikipedia.org] to make them find the odor of cats sexually appealing. Yes, you heard that right.

It puts a whole new spin on all those Tom & Jerry cartoons, now doesn't it?

Of course your next question is if it does something similar to infected humans. Supposedly, it has been shown to cause a statistically significant increase in car accidents among the infected. Perhaps that study will be countered too though.

Re:Mind-altering parasite (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41081315)

Shut up, neckbeard.

Re:Mind-altering parasite (2)

ArsenneLupin (766289) | about 2 years ago | (#41081627)

Of course your next question is if it does something similar to infected humans. Supposedly, it has been shown to cause a statistically significant increase in car accidents among the infected.

Yes, because it is a well-known fact that cats like to nibble on traffic accident cadavers...

Re:Mind-altering parasite (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41081927)

Well duh. Everyone know zombies can't drive cars...

Re:Mind-altering parasite (1)

Hatta (162192) | about 2 years ago | (#41082289)

And as one might suspect, Toxoplasmosis is linked [cdc.gov] to schizophrenia and bipolar disorder.

Interestingly, as drug warriors grasp at ever fewer straws, they've found a tenuous linkage between Cannabis use and schizophrenia. Somehow they never propose criminalizing felines though.

Re:Mind-altering parasite (3, Funny)

Chris Mattern (191822) | about 2 years ago | (#41082579)

Somehow they never propose criminalizing felines though.

When cats are outlawed, only outlaws will have cats!

Re:Mind-altering parasite (1)

N0Man74 (1620447) | about 2 years ago | (#41086457)

Somehow they never propose criminalizing felines though.

Quick! Everyone tell your congressmen about the original story that linked cats to cancer, before they hear it was wrong!

And on a similar note... can we keep this story on the down-low? I would like to continue using the original study as an excuse not to have cats around when I move in with my girlfriend.

Re:Mind-altering parasite (1)

MaskedSlacker (911878) | about 2 years ago | (#41089323)

Interestingly, as drug warriors grasp at ever fewer straws, they've found a tenuous linkage between Cannabis use and schizophrenia. Somehow they never propose criminalizing felines though.

They found a tenuous link? Must make them pine for the good ol' days when they just fabricated a strong link between the two.

Re:Mind-altering parasite (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41085527)

Perhaps higher car/health insurance rates for infected?

Re:Mind-altering parasite (1)

steelfood (895457) | about 2 years ago | (#41087443)

From wikipedia [wikipedia.org] :

Studies have also shown behavioral changes in humans, including lower reaction times and a sixfold increased risk of traffic accidents among infected, RhD-negative males, as well as links to schizophrenia including hallucinations and reckless behavior. Recent epidemiologic studies by Stanley Medical Research Institute and Johns Hopkins University Medical Center indicate that infectious agents may contribute to some cases of schizophrenia. A study of 191 young women in 1999 reported higher intelligence and higher guilt proneness in Toxoplasma-positive subjects.

So yes, there is good reason to believe that this can affect human brains as well. What precisely the effect is hasn't been determined yet though.

Re:Mind-altering parasite (1)

MaskedSlacker (911878) | about 2 years ago | (#41089317)

NPR's late to the party. All of this has been common internet knowledge for YEARS.

All these studies (1)

Lord Lode (1290856) | about 2 years ago | (#41081207)

Imho, too much science these days is just vague statistical studies.

Where are the times when science was about actually discovering new things, where you could actually see the effect of it?

Re:All these studies (1)

Colonel Korn (1258968) | about 2 years ago | (#41081331)

Imho, too much science these days is just vague statistical studies.

Where are the times when science was about actually discovering new things, where you could actually see the effect of it?

Keep in mind that your personal view of science is determined by the pop-culture articles you read, or in this case the pop-culture summary of a pop-culture article referring to a particular scientific paper. I assure you that the "times when science was about actually discovering new things" are still upon us.

Re:All these studies (1)

Lord Lode (1290856) | about 2 years ago | (#41081431)

Got any examples?

Well, to be honest, I can find examples myself, there are still things about science that I find really exciting, such as LHC and the mars landers :)

Re:All these studies (1)

juanfgs (922455) | about 2 years ago | (#41083529)

ah, you mean Twitter Science

Re:All these studies (1)

AvitarX (172628) | about 2 years ago | (#41084967)

Genetic engineering would be a quick example IMO.

A lot of the new targeted (location wise) medicines. Stem cell research starting to bear fruits. These are all medical and off the top of my head.

Re:All these studies (1)

Hatta (162192) | about 2 years ago | (#41082311)

We ran out of those things. The low hanging fruit is gone pretty quick.

So the cats finally got to the researchers, eh? (1)

real gumby (11516) | about 2 years ago | (#41081215)

They didn't want their evil plot revealed. Probably they just did some genetic engineering on the virus to affect the researchers' judgement. There's plenty of evidence the cats have this capability. I used to find stray bird parts and decapitated rats disgusting. Now I consider them "cute".

I'm not a /bin/cat owner (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41081289)

Root is.

Cats are behind this new story. (1)

cod3r_ (2031620) | about 2 years ago | (#41081295)

They are plotting to kill us after all.

600,000 women? (1)

tnk1 (899206) | about 2 years ago | (#41081313)

At least half of the people who I know that own cats are men. Was there a reason for only selecting women? Or are they looking for cat ladies to research against? Inquiring minds want to know.

Re:600,000 women? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41081479)

Pregnant women are often advised (in the UK at least) to take precautions against T Gondii infection because it leads to Toxoplasmosis, which can be dangerous for unborn humans. Hence the focus on woman. See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxoplasmosis#Pregnancy_precautions

Re:600,000 women? (1)

erroneus (253617) | about 2 years ago | (#41081747)

Because there are more "crazy cat ladies" than "crazy cat men."

Toxoplasmosis (1)

sa666u (2626427) | about 2 years ago | (#41081341)

Tommy from "Trainspotting" died from Toxoplasmosis. "It's like an abcess in your brain." Pretty nasty. One of the greatest movies of all time though.

Re:Toxoplasmosis (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41081673)

citation needed.

otherwise you're a lying sack of shit sa666u

Re:Toxoplasmosis (1)

dyingtolive (1393037) | about 2 years ago | (#41081995)

Really?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0117951/quotes [imdb.com]
Gavin: Tommy knew he'd caught the virus, but he never knew he'd gone full-blown.
Mark "Rent-boy" Renton: What was it, pneumonia or cancer?
Gavin: No, toxoplasmosis. Sort of like a stroke.
Mark "Rent-boy" Renton: Eh? How's that?
Gavin: He wanted to see Lizzy again. Lizzy wouldn't let him near the house. So he bought a present for her, bought her a kitten.
Mark "Rent-boy" Renton: But Lizzy told him where to fucking stick it.
Gavin: Exactly. "l'm not wantin' that cat," she says. "Get the fuck," right? So there's Tommy stuck with this kitten. You can imagine what happened. The thing was neglected... pissing and shitting all over the place. Tommy's lying about fucked out of his eyeballs... on smack or downers. He never knew you could get toxoplasmosis from cat shit.
Mark "Rent-boy" Renton: Neither did l. What is it?
Gavin: Fucking horrible. It's like an abscess on your brain.
Mark "Rent-boy" Renton: Fucking hell. Then what happened?
Gavin: He starts getting these headaches. So he just uses more smack, you know, for the pain. And then he has a stroke. A fucking stroke, just like that. Gets home from the hospital and dies three weeks later. He'd been dead for ages before the neighbors complained about the smell and got the police to break down the door. Tommy was lying facedown in a pool of vomit.
[long pause]
Gavin: The kitten was fine.

There, proof that Tommy died in Trainspotting from Toxoplasmosis

Irvine Welsh (1)

Penurious Penguin (2687307) | about 2 years ago | (#41086183)

You really must read other works by Irvine Welsh; Filth, Ecstasy, Marabou Stork Nightmares, Acid House. All fantastic and wickedly insane novels. It's like an abscess in your fiction, but a worthy one.

T. gondii? (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 2 years ago | (#41081357)

"Always aim at complete harmony of thought and word and deed. Always aim at purifying your thoughts and everything will be well."

Oh, no! (2)

OhHellWithIt (756826) | about 2 years ago | (#41081449)

Do you mean to tell me I killed Fluffy for nothing???

Re:Oh, no! (1)

watcher-rv4 (2712547) | about 2 years ago | (#41082169)

6 lives left.

I have a possible reason for this (1)

slashmydots (2189826) | about 2 years ago | (#41081555)

I guess they forgot to factor in the fact that higher infection rates might indicate worse healthcare, worse pollution levels, worse overall sanitation, a climate more friendly to pathogens, and a generally more cancer-inducing set of circumstances before they drew a line straight from cats to cancer. Wow, slashdot makes me feel like a better than average paid, professional, career scientist every day :-P

What about the cats? (1)

ISoldat53 (977164) | about 2 years ago | (#41081573)

Do cats infected with the bug have a higher incidence of brain cancer? Seems like they would if it has that affect on humans.

Sure... that's what the cats WANT you to think! (1)

erroneus (253617) | about 2 years ago | (#41081697)

Also, eat mor chik'n

hairyparanoia (2)

Penurious Penguin (2687307) | about 2 years ago | (#41081815)

Glad that's out of the way; though toxoplasmosis and schizophrenia [sciencedaily.com] don't seem too appealing either.

I may be blind to the more profound, esoteric aspects of the cat, but I do marvel at what high prices some will pay for a haughty ball of animated fur.
My suggestions to curb this perilous market are as follows, but first and foremost, it could become unlawful to possess an unshaven cat. This would discourage the majority of prospective cat ownership, as no healthy person wants a five pound worm with claws and fangs.

Exchanges, or replacement-cats would be comprised of internal motors, synthetic fur shells with a stuffable, washable center into which they could be figuratively "fed", and an exit module by which they could also be un-fed.
Some form of appropriately colored reusable putty would be included in the exchange. This putty would serve two purposes:
1.) To supplement food, thus saving money and resources and one's nose.
2.) To be placed into a litter-box for a genuine looking effect.
For the lower-maintenance, upgrade model, a wireless link would be installed. Through a very cute web interface, owners could enter credit-card numbers and refill codes to control the figurative health of the cat. It would bloat or compress upon signals received in accordance with funds transferred or not transferred. The cat would in extreme situations of over or underfunding, either gently explode or implode, but show only trivial, charming contractions under normal circumstances. There would of course, be settings, such as adjustable mewing, retractable thorns to cut one's self on or destroy furniture with, etc.

Those are my suggestions.

Re:hairyparanoia (1)

s0nicfreak (615390) | about 2 years ago | (#41087049)

That doesn't work, hairless cats [wikipedia.org] are actually quite popular. It even gives owners an excuse to put cute little sweaters on them.

Re:hairyparanoia (1)

Penurious Penguin (2687307) | about 2 years ago | (#41087337)

You have shattered the capstone of my argument with the cudgel of reality. Alas, people are more insane than I feared. Worms endowed with phantasmagorical agility and slashing weapons! Behold a wicked world!

Isn't it obvious? (2)

SternisheFan (2529412) | about 2 years ago | (#41081881)

The original story was written by a dog.

Re:Isn't it obvious? (1)

sapgau (413511) | about 2 years ago | (#41084853)

My thoughts exactly!!
Woof!!

Science reporting, gotta love it ! (1)

arielCo (995647) | about 2 years ago | (#41082013)

The Science News Cycle [phdcomics.com] :

* Your Research : Conclusion: A is correlated with B (=0.56), given C, assuming D and under E conditions.
* University PR Office: FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Scientists Find Potential Link Between A and B (Under certain conditions)
* News Wire Organizations: A causes B, say Scientists.
* The Internets: Scientists out to kill us again
* Cable News: A causes B all the time (we saw it on a blog). What will this mean for Obama?
* Local Eyewitless News: A: KILLER AMONG US? More at 11.
* Your Grandma wearing a tinfoil hat with antennae: "I'm wearing this to ward off A"

Re:Science reporting, gotta love it ! (1)

skids (119237) | about 2 years ago | (#41083431)

* Amateur Internet Cynic: Obviously all scientists are full of it since this one scientific conclusion was misreported by journalism majors.
* Producer of A: Damn my sales are down, I'd better buy a congresscritter, and some PR.
* Republican Think Tank: Cretinous Scientists get it wrong again! 9 out of 10 of our relatives with correspondence school degrees agree A is totally harmless.
* Republican Senator: We have to cut all funding to useless scientific research on any alternatives to A. And mandate the use of A in government cheese.
* 10 years later, your research: B is correlated with eating government cheese, given C, assuming D and under E conditions.

Sheldon can rest easy now. (1)

Dcnjoe60 (682885) | about 2 years ago | (#41082421)

Title says it all.

My cat could still care less... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41082479)

Mr. Boots says "meh"...

Re:My cat could still care less... (1)

SternisheFan (2529412) | about 2 years ago | (#41086905)

Mr. Boots says "meh"...

Yeah, that's cats for ya'. Dog's attitude on seeing you come home, "All right! I love you!! You're the greatest!!" A cat'll just glance over at you with a look that says, "Leave a message. Maybe I'll get back to you."

Oh gee, a study that was wrong? You dont say? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41083545)

I dont know what it is with people who believe in some random study performed now a days. Most studies are just done to get cash flow. You can make good money off doing "studies" and many people do. You can prove or disprove virtually anything if you really want to. Very very little real science and fact and study go into almost all studies anymore.

People will believe anything you tell them if you put it in a magazine article or preface it with "Studies show" because they are ignorant and stupid creatures.

Re:Oh gee, a study that was wrong? You dont say? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41084305)

Most studies are just done to get cash flow. You can make good money off doing "studies" and many people do. You can prove or disprove virtually anything if you really want to. Very very little real science and fact and study go into almost all studies anymore.

"Climate change" studies for example.

Re:Oh gee, a study that was wrong? You dont say? (1)

SternisheFan (2529412) | about 2 years ago | (#41090055)

People will believe anything you tell them if you put it in a magazine article or preface it with "Studies show" because they are ignorant and stupid creatures.

Hey, wait just one sec there cowboy. Aren't you a people?

Our friend the parasite? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41083679)

> but there's still no word on whether our friend the parasite causes cancer or not.

Which creature is being referred to here?

Why not cat owners who are male? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41087301)

OK, am I crazy here, or is anyone else surprised by the fact that they only surveyed cat owners who were female?

Yeah, yeah, I get it - the crazy cat lady/spinster jokes, but really, 600,000 owners and all of them female? What if the cancer developed differently in men, and they missed it?

Only women (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41091117)

The toxoplasma only adversely affects men, and the study is only tracking women.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>